Christopher Jon Bjerknes
Iran has elected to call the UN's bluff. Iranians have decided that they will not likely lose anything by letting the UN deadline expire. That opens the door to the next round of diplomacy without diplomacy, whereby the member states of the UN will have to negotiate with one another as to what to do next. Iran is gambling that this impasse will in fact strengthen their hand, because their enemies will fear their resolve and look for other ways of resolving the crisis. They also hope that Iran's allies will persuade the UN to take steps which will offer Iran more than it is now offered for compliance with the will of the Israelis.
Iranians wonder: What will they do? How much time will we have? What will our allies do? What will our enemies do?
The US will push for harsher, more punitive sanctions, based on the premise that previous sanctions have failed and that Iran was warned and has failed to respond positively, but has instead responded with defiance and delay, and has only promised to escalate its uranium enrichment program. The US will also state that incentives should be reduced based on the premise that Iran must be discouraged from stalling.
Iran will counter this argument by covertly asking Russia to call on the UN for more attractive incentives based on the premise that Iran has not been persuaded by previous incentives. If all goes well for the Iranians, the result might be a sweeter carrot and a sharper stick. If the UN reduces incentives under US pressure based on the premise that Iran must be discouraged from stalling, Iran will badly lose this silly game. The gambit is a foolish one, and the potential rewards in no way justify the risks. This reveals the fact that Iran is being led astray by traitors.
Time is a key factor in this conflict. The US gains by short term delays, in that it is preparing to soften up Iran with an intense bombing campaign, and Iran's "defiance" sways public opinion against Iran. This has been America's strategy in most recent wars, if not all recent wars. They will strike without warning, for there is no other way to protect American vessels and Gulf oil production. Their first strike will be devastating and may well include a nuclear attack, which may well escalate into a nuclear strike on Tehran. There is no one to stop them from doing this.
Loyal Iranians should consider the fact that they are not fighting against patriotic Americans, but instead with Israelis who stand to lose nothing by destroying America, but stand to gain a new wave of Jewish emigration to Palestine should America be destroyed. Iranians should know that America will be scapegoated for Israel's attack on Iran, and, therefore, there is no disincentive for those in charge of American foreign policy to attack Iran, because they are Israelis by citizenship and by loyalties.
Iran can change that situation by accusing Israel of subverting American foreign policy and of illegally provoking aggressive war against Iran. This would create a disincentive to disloyal Jews from deliberately subverting American interests, because they would risk a higher probability of a severe backlash for their treachery.
It cannot be doubted, however, that Iran is run by the same forces who are destroying America. The arguments made above are simply an academic exercise to expose the excuses the top Iranian and American leadership are making by way of theater to keep their regimes in power as they deliberately create the preconditions for the coming war and the coming devastation of their countries. They are sham arguments made to keep the people from revolting against their revolting march towards war.
It is near the time when it will be futile to continue to try to resolve the problems that the Israelis are causing the Iranians and the Moslems. The Moslems and Americans are doing almost nothing to save themselves from this Israeli campaign to destroy both by pitting them against one another. I have been warning of these events publicly for two years.
I will soon have to turn my attention to warning of the coming war between Russia and America, just as I began two years ago to warn of the coming war between Iran and America. It is funny. Some people still suspect that when I refer to a war with Iran I am mistaking Iran for Iraq. Indeed. . .